Recently, during AT, our BC stood in front of the whole battalion and announced that our OKARNG unit was to be disbanded due to recent cuts in NG budget and cutbacks. With this in mind, Oklahoma has a high concentration of natural disaster, and very few units to begin with. How can they justify shutting down units that have a high possibility of mobility for this instance when there are states with many more units and fewer response requirements?
Posted in these groups: 
Army National Guard
Army National Guard
Posted >1 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
I have edited my post because it was poorly written.
I think the Army is focused on the wrong things, and as a result may not retain everyone that they should be retaining.
I think they are worried about the sideburns (stupid and trivial), the tattoo policy (I had one of the best developmental sessions with CSM Graca, the FORSCOM CSM, who was covered in tattoos - he's not a bad Soldier...he, at least from my initial impression, seemed like an AMAZING CSM), trying to change the APFT (unsuccessfully for two years and at the great cost to everyone), and a lot of other minor inconsequential things.
How often, in the grand scheme of things, do you see a toxic senior leader removed from a formation? Aside from MAJOR incidents? How often do you see someone in trouble from failing to counsel an NCO? I'm talking, you violated where it says you are to counsel people for their OER/NCOER in the regulation.
There are a lot of very serious things that we aren't really focused on.
I do see a Soldier going "I can't get counseled and I'm treated poorly by my leadership and they aren't getting removed or reprimanded" but I have to (insert trivial thing here).
There's a lot of things we SAY are good for "getting back to basics" but we are more focused on other things.
I also disagree that the past is what we need to get back to. This post was mainly written because I disagree when I listen to how awesome the Army was pre-2001. This was when it was ok to have a negative SHARP environment, it was ok to harass, publicly humiliate, or belittle your peers or subordinates, ok to deploy in flak vests from Vietnam, etc.
No, what we NEED to do is simply enforce the regulations in place and weed out the substandard Soldiers. I think we are using the wrong metric(s) for doing so.
Yes, they are weeding out people with Article 15s, but just because a SFC got a minor A15 X years ago doesn't make him a worse leader than X person who is just a mediocre space-waster (no, I do not have anything that would qualify me for QMP).
**************
It should be noted that my main issue isn't necessarily with "getting back to basics" but the discussion that usually surrounds it. The irony is that we (as in senior leaders, no one specifically) talk about enforcing standards that were already in place and going back to standards that existed when we were more junior and yet "we" were the ones that let those standards slip in the first place. Usually I hear "because of war". My pre-9/11 leadership would say to that "Boy, Soldier, that sure sounds like an excuse."
I think the Army is focused on the wrong things, and as a result may not retain everyone that they should be retaining.
I think they are worried about the sideburns (stupid and trivial), the tattoo policy (I had one of the best developmental sessions with CSM Graca, the FORSCOM CSM, who was covered in tattoos - he's not a bad Soldier...he, at least from my initial impression, seemed like an AMAZING CSM), trying to change the APFT (unsuccessfully for two years and at the great cost to everyone), and a lot of other minor inconsequential things.
How often, in the grand scheme of things, do you see a toxic senior leader removed from a formation? Aside from MAJOR incidents? How often do you see someone in trouble from failing to counsel an NCO? I'm talking, you violated where it says you are to counsel people for their OER/NCOER in the regulation.
There are a lot of very serious things that we aren't really focused on.
I do see a Soldier going "I can't get counseled and I'm treated poorly by my leadership and they aren't getting removed or reprimanded" but I have to (insert trivial thing here).
There's a lot of things we SAY are good for "getting back to basics" but we are more focused on other things.
I also disagree that the past is what we need to get back to. This post was mainly written because I disagree when I listen to how awesome the Army was pre-2001. This was when it was ok to have a negative SHARP environment, it was ok to harass, publicly humiliate, or belittle your peers or subordinates, ok to deploy in flak vests from Vietnam, etc.
No, what we NEED to do is simply enforce the regulations in place and weed out the substandard Soldiers. I think we are using the wrong metric(s) for doing so.
Yes, they are weeding out people with Article 15s, but just because a SFC got a minor A15 X years ago doesn't make him a worse leader than X person who is just a mediocre space-waster (no, I do not have anything that would qualify me for QMP).
**************
It should be noted that my main issue isn't necessarily with "getting back to basics" but the discussion that usually surrounds it. The irony is that we (as in senior leaders, no one specifically) talk about enforcing standards that were already in place and going back to standards that existed when we were more junior and yet "we" were the ones that let those standards slip in the first place. Usually I hear "because of war". My pre-9/11 leadership would say to that "Boy, Soldier, that sure sounds like an excuse."
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google